God killing in the OT

[Latinitas]

Hmm I will research that…

I know having had sex, the SoS is a pretty accrurate play by play…

Though no I see nothing immodest but I also don’t view sex as inherently immodest…

I would ask sort of if youhave partaken? In that to understand the play by play? It is quite accurate… I have experienced it quite a bit and it usually works out like that.

usccb.org/bible/songofsongs/0

The US bishops apparently did not get the memo about it not being about sexuality

I am glad the internet exists, I would have lost some faith in the Church’s divine guidance if they were really claiming that there was no sex in the SoS… I have been there, it is what it is.

Ah in my quick reading HE supposedly sort of most only attributed to what an enemy claimed he said wanted it removed as cannon for being impure.

First this may not have even been entirely true.

2 his calling it impure and being wrong does not mean it is not about sex persay. It means it is not impure!

Two very different things. Nothing in SoS contradicts the theology of the body nor catechism to my knowledge so it can not be impure

I admit that it’s difficult to know what exactly Theodore taught, but it certainly was condemned.

As to the NAB, I will note that some of their notes have received setrious criticism from Catholics, criticisms which I share. You can even find a thread here on subject.

The allegorical interpretation I’ve expounded is the traditional interpretation of the book, in both the Synagogue and the Church. I’d encourage you to read the old Catholic encyclopedia’s article on the book. It’s not an extraordinary interpretation, and the allegory of marriage is frequently used in both the Old and New Testaments.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[LethalMouse]

I admit that it’s difficult to know what exactly Theodore taught, but it certainly was condemned.

As to the NAB, I will note that some of their notes have received setrious criticism from Catholics, criticisms which I share. You can even find a thread here on subject.

The allegorical interpretation I’ve expounded is the traditional interpretation of the book, in both the Synagogue and the Church. I’d encourage you to read the old Catholic encyclopedia’s article on the book. It’s not an extraordinary interpretation, and the allegory of marriage is frequently used in both the Old and New Testaments.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

NAB? Is that the Bishops? Hmm.

In general I have never heard of this Theodore guy, and I was just pressuming based on your post he is considered the “source” of it having anything to do with sex.

I also don’t see it as lacking in allegory especially in its side descriptions of the city and all that. But the sex part seems inherently clear and this is an interesting topic I never considered nor looked into.

The issue for me is that in a Protestant sense of “personal interpretation” I come up with by myself the same things the Catholic Church does.

Anywhere anyone claims the Catholic stance is a certain way that I deem illogical I have found the actual church teaching to be logical.

There seems to be a bit of gray here and such, but the Bishop’s rendition seems to align with my logic on a matter of faith and morals.

In a sense I don’t want you to prove such wrong for to shake my convictions of the Church…

But alas I do love truth so if there is an infallible teaching that says there is nothing of sex in the SoS I would actually be interested for it to be presented to me. Given the muddled nature of the council and the totality of reasons and lost records… the general condemnation of a guy who on this stance may or may not have said something is hard to see as that.

And the USCCB website does not equate to infallibility that I know of but seems the strongest authority I could find thus far.

 

[Latinitas]

NAB? Is that the Bishops? Hmm.

In general I have never heard of this Theodore guy, and I was just pressuming based on your post he is considered the “source” of it having anything to do with sex.

I also don’t see it as lacking in allegory especially in its side descriptions of the city and all that. But the sex part seems inherently clear and this is an interesting topic I never considered nor looked into.

The issue for me is that in a Protestant sense of “personal interpretation” I come up with by myself the same things the Catholic Church does.

Anywhere anyone claims the Catholic stance is a certain way that I deem illogical I have found the actual church teaching to be logical.

There seems to be a bit of gray here and such, but the Bishop’s rendition seems to align with my logic on a matter of faith and morals.

In a sense I don’t want you to prove such wrong for to shake my convictions of the Church…

But alas I do love truth so if there is an infallible teaching that says there is nothing of sex in the SoS I would actually be interested for it to be presented to me. Given the muddled nature of the council and the totality of reasons and lost records… the general condemnation of a guy who on this stance may or may not have said something is hard to see as that.

And the USCCB website does not equate to infallibility that I know of but seems the strongest authority I could find thus far.

The NAB is not from the bishops itself. Its the translation that’s used in the liturgy and which CCD has the copyright. It has an imprimatur, but this doesn’t mean the bishops hold that opinion.

I’ll reply substantially later, when I’m not on my phone.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

NAB? Is that the Bishops? Hmm.

In general I have never heard of this Theodore guy, and I was just pressuming based on your post he is considered the “source” of it having anything to do with sex.

I also don’t see it as lacking in allegory especially in its side descriptions of the city and all that. But the sex part seems inherently clear and this is an interesting topic I never considered nor looked into.

The issue for me is that in a Protestant sense of “personal interpretation” I come up with by myself the same things the Catholic Church does.

Anywhere anyone claims the Catholic stance is a certain way that I deem illogical I have found the actual church teaching to be logical.

There seems to be a bit of gray here and such, but the Bishop’s rendition seems to align with my logic on a matter of faith and morals.

In a sense I don’t want you to prove such wrong for to shake my convictions of the Church…

But alas I do love truth so if there is an infallible teaching that says there is nothing of sex in the SoS I would actually be interested for it to be presented to me. Given the muddled nature of the council and the totality of reasons and lost records… the general condemnation of a guy who on this stance may or may not have said something is hard to see as that.

And the USCCB website does not equate to infallibility that I know of but seems the strongest authority I could find thus far.

 

[Latinitas]

NAB? Is that the Bishops? Hmm.

In general I have never heard of this Theodore guy, and I was just pressuming based on your post he is considered the “source” of it having anything to do with sex.

I also don’t see it as lacking in allegory especially in its side descriptions of the city and all that. But the sex part seems inherently clear and this is an interesting topic I never considered nor looked into.

The issue for me is that in a Protestant sense of “personal interpretation” I come up with by myself the same things the Catholic Church does.

Anywhere anyone claims the Catholic stance is a certain way that I deem illogical I have found the actual church teaching to be logical.

There seems to be a bit of gray here and such, but the Bishop’s rendition seems to align with my logic on a matter of faith and morals.

In a sense I don’t want you to prove such wrong for to shake my convictions of the Church…

But alas I do love truth so if there is an infallible teaching that says there is nothing of sex in the SoS I would actually be interested for it to be presented to me. Given the muddled nature of the council and the totality of reasons and lost records… the general condemnation of a guy who on this stance may or may not have said something is hard to see as that.

And the USCCB website does not equate to infallibility that I know of but seems the strongest authority I could find thus far.

The NAB is not from the bishops. It’s just the translation that’s used in the liturgy. It has an imprimatur, but that doesn’t mean the bishops agree with the content.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[jcrichton]

NAB? Is that the Bishops? Hmm.

In general I have never heard of this Theodore guy, and I was just pressuming based on your post he is considered the “source” of it having anything to do with sex.

I also don’t see it as lacking in allegory especially in its side descriptions of the city and all that. But the sex part seems inherently clear and this is an interesting topic I never considered nor looked into.

The issue for me is that in a Protestant sense of “personal interpretation” I come up with by myself the same things the Catholic Church does.

Anywhere anyone claims the Catholic stance is a certain way that I deem illogical I have found the actual church teaching to be logical.

There seems to be a bit of gray here and such, but the Bishop’s rendition seems to align with my logic on a matter of faith and morals.

In a sense I don’t want you to prove such wrong for to shake my convictions of the Church…

But alas I do love truth so if there is an infallible teaching that says there is nothing of sex in the SoS I would actually be interested for it to be presented to me. Given the muddled nature of the council and the totality of reasons and lost records… the general condemnation of a guy who on this stance may or may not have said something is hard to see as that.

And the USCCB website does not equate to infallibility that I know of but seems the strongest authority I could find thus far.

Hi!
…I think it is the meaning given to something rather than the content which is included in Scriptures… I forget the prophet (I think it may have been Hosea), Yahweh God Commands him to get himself a wife–but He Commands that he, His holy man, takes a prostitute for a wife… if there ever was a link to sex?.. yet, the Catholic Church does not try to hide the fact that this prophet of God marries a sexuality active (as, immoral) woman.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LethalMouse]

Hi!
…I think it is the meaning given to something rather than the content which is included in Scriptures… I forget the prophet (I think it may have been Hosea), Yahweh God Commands him to get himself a wife–but He Commands that he, His holy man, takes a prostitute for a wife… if there ever was a link to sex?.. yet, the Catholic Church does not try to hide the fact that this prophet of God marries a sexuality active (as, immoral) woman.

Maran atha!

Angel

I think you are agreeing with me?

 

[jcrichton]

I think you are agreeing with me?

…I think that the issue is allegory… though the description of the Poem is dramatic, the format itself is allegorical (I can express a factual experience as: ‘…and death kissed me as I began to fear for my life…’ or I can surmise the experience as: “I kept going down as my feet seem to never find the bottom which I, just a few seconds before jumping, thought to be so easily reached; I almost drowned due to my erroneous perception–clear water and inexperience can be a lethal combination!”); though both are the same retelling of one of my childhood’s experiences they are both valid conveyances.

Since the opening of the Poem is about a kiss… we know that sex is involved; yet, we should not take it out of the context of Sacred Writings and we should seek to find the meaning and the reason why such a vessel was chosen to tell the Poem’s story.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LethalMouse]

…I think that the issue is allegory… though the description of the Poem is dramatic, the format itself is allegorical (I can express a factual experience as: ‘…and death kissed me as I began to fear for my life…’ or I can surmise the experience as: “I kept going down as my feet seem to never find the bottom which I, just a few seconds before jumping, thought to be so easily reached; I almost drowned due to my erroneous perception–clear water and inexperience can be a lethal combination!”); though both are the same retelling of one of my childhood’s experiences they are both valid conveyances.

Since the opening of the Poem is about a kiss… we know that sex is involved; yet, we should not take it out of the context of Sacred Writings and we should seek to find the meaning and the reason why such a vessel was chosen to tell the Poem’s story.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes, much is allegorical for a host of issues IMO. But the issue I was seeing is that some people equate sex with bad. Or unholy, or some kind of necessary evil within that which is holy.

If Marriage is a sacrament, if we are to be fruitful and multiply. If we are called to emulate the church through marriage and to become one flesh one blood with our spouse that we may bring each other wholly closer to God. And if we are to gain great pleasure in doing God’s will…

Then sex would be far from an unholy immodest horror we need to pretend was never mentioned.

In fact given the physical and blissful union of two people within the confines of what God has commanded representing the baseline for a properly functioning society… Sex is a perfect medium through which to present a perfect love and society. Hence the whole of the nation being good while the love/sex of two are good.

Basically much of that family synod is a less fancy reiteration of the SoS in that:

Family good
Society good

Family bad
Society bad.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, much is allegorical for a host of issues IMO. But the issue I was seeing is that some people equate sex with bad. Or unholy, or some kind of necessary evil within that which is holy.

If Marriage is a sacrament, if we are to be fruitful and multiply. If we are called to emulate the church through marriage and to become one flesh one blood with our spouse that we may bring each other wholly closer to God. And if we are to gain great pleasure in doing God’s will…

Then sex would be far from an unholy immodest horror we need to pretend was never mentioned.

In fact given the physical and blissful union of two people within the confines of what God has commanded representing the baseline for a properly functioning society… Sex is a perfect medium through which to present a perfect love and society. Hence the whole of the nation being good while the love/sex of two are good.

Basically much of that family synod is a less fancy reiteration of the SoS in that:

Family good
Society good

Family bad
Society bad.

I agree with you. St. John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” is the strongest evidence that the Church does not see the Sacrament of Marriage as evil. Yet, we must be careful in what and how we embrace things… “love making” is an euphemism for debauchery–hollowood’s marketing propaganda (“sex sells”). It is when we resort to this language and understanding of sexuality that, Believers and non-Believers, err.

We can take the most innocent of things and dissemble and debase its value by claiming some euphemistic jargon/exegesis.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LethalMouse]

I agree with you. St. John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” is the strongest evidence that the Church does not see the Sacrament of Marriage as evil. Yet, we must be careful in what and how we embrace things… “love making” is an euphemism for debauchery–hollowood’s marketing propaganda (“sex sells”). It is when we resort to this language and understanding of sexuality that, Believers and non-Believers, err.

We can take the most innocent of things and dissemble and debase its value by claiming some euphemistic jargon/exegesis.

Maran atha!

Angel

I am reminded of a teaching of my Grandfather back when. He was a firearms instructor and such. When asked by new gun owners how to handle their children his advice was

“If you and your wife are having maritals and the kid knocks on your door and asks to see it, you stop and go show him the gun”

It was a point about taboo vs not.

While this was generally exaggerated for a point, it has one. There is always a line in that you can’t make things a free for all in any regard and such. But when you make it too taboo, when you create the image that many Christians have amoungst the secular and lapse christians… the push back is extreme.

The foolhearty of the past said all sex was bad

Their decendants as such did all sex everywhere.

The balance needs struck and I often fear it cannot be

There is a christian rock song something about “Jesus friend of sinners” and throughout it the singer sings how he basically pushed people away being so righteous and that he was the biggest obstacle between those whom he could lead to Christ and them actually getting there. The whole splinter/plank thing.

It is funny bc on these very forums the effects of the splinter/plank are discusssed and so many jump in to say the only reason people dont come to the church is themselves and they have no culpability for “chasing people away” yet why then such teachings from Jesus of the splinter/plank???

If an atheist or lapse happens upon the SoS and the first seemingly good solid catholic opinion he heres is like that of the “there is no sex!” Advocates… and said person looking into the CC is able to read and understand words… they will determine the CC is false.

Sure they could have investigated ad nauseum to root what is teachings vs parishioners. But in initilal who would even know there is a difference?

I have been there… I know what hearing people’s version of religion does. It makes it sound like a horrible, miserable existencr wrought with doom and a life of sitting in a chair with your arms folded.

We need people to know, simply that is no where near the case.

 

[jcrichton]

I am reminded of a teaching of my Grandfather back when. He was a firearms instructor and such. When asked by new gun owners how to handle their children his advice was

“If you and your wife are having maritals and the kid knocks on your door and asks to see it, you stop and go show him the gun”

It was a point about taboo vs not.

While this was generally exaggerated for a point, it has one. There is always a line in that you can’t make things a free for all in any regard and such. But when you make it too taboo, when you create the image that many Christians have amoungst the secular and lapse christians… the push back is extreme.

The foolhearty of the past said all sex was bad

Their decendants as such did all sex everywhere.

The balance needs struck and I often fear it cannot be

There is a christian rock song something about “Jesus friend of sinners” and throughout it the singer sings how he basically pushed people away being so righteous and that he was the biggest obstacle between those whom he could lead to Christ and them actually getting there. The whole splinter/plank thing.

It is funny bc on these very forums the effects of the splinter/plank are discusssed and so many jump in to say the only reason people dont come to the church is themselves and they have no culpability for “chasing people away” yet why then such teachings from Jesus of the splinter/plank???

If an atheist or lapse happens upon the SoS and the first seemingly good solid catholic opinion he heres is like that of the “there is no sex!” Advocates… and said person looking into the CC is able to read and understand words… they will determine the CC is false.

Sure they could have investigated ad nauseum to root what is teachings vs parishioners. But in initilal who would even know there is a difference?

I have been there… I know what hearing people’s version of religion does. It makes it sound like a horrible, miserable existencr wrought with doom and a life of sitting in a chair with your arms folded.

We need people to know, simply that is no where near the case.

…here we have a mixed bag… while there are sound thoughts and intentions… there are failed, if not subversive, elements in the disputations:

44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.” 48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (St. Luke 7:36-50)

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. 7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.” 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (St. Luke 19:5-10)

In each case (above) we find Jesus not simply carousing with sinners but engaging them and placing them on the Correct Path–usually, the Holy Spirit would Inspire the sinner to seek Jesus and to surrender his/her will to Him; the change/Return is epic!

…here comes the twist… sadly, most people (Believers included) miss all of those “good” parts… and they simply keep the mundane: Christ cohorts with sinners (translation: ‘God loves us just as we are; no need for change’), is Forgiving (‘Christ died for all sins once and for all; don’t worry sin happy’), and Christ does not Judge (‘even the adulterous woman was given the OK; God knows that the flesh is weak and God is Love so He will not allow anyone to go to Hell’).

Basically, as St. Paul attested, this is an abomination! People who think as such and who teach such things have already been destined to perdition:

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:28-32)

Sex has never been taught as taboo by the Catholic Church–what the Catholic Church has always Taught is self-control, as in Chastity.

…we all engage in rebelliousness, evolution, growth, freedom… these, to some extent, can be healthy and beneficial to our development… yet, when devoid of personal responsibility and God, we engage the miscreant-zone where we ourselves become the absolute power.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PolliceVerso]

Allegorizing the whole OT is wrong and has been condemned by the Church (cf. 1909 decree of the PBC on Genesis 1-3, the 1905 decree of the PBC on historical books, the 1934 condemnation of a book denying the historicity of the patriarchs, the admonition of Pius XII in Humani generis and some others).

Similarly, the opinion that the stories are exaggerated also seems incompatible with the 1909 decree of the PBC. Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis it expressly prohibits holding that the accounts are legends partly historical and partly fictitious.

The purpose of the historical books is give us an account of how and when Divine Revelation was given, and what God did for his people, hence to deny them would be erroneous, even if not absolutely heretical.

Catholic exegesis is much more conservative than many people want to admit, and excepting those parts where Protestants and Catholics have differed in interpretation, the views you’ll find in evangelical Protestantism are often very similar to traditional and orthodox Catholic views on the matter. There are some exceptions (like the Song of Solomon), of course, but in regards to the historical books, they’re not much.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I agree, though I would add that actual historical events can also serve as types, symbols, and metaphors. For example, St. Peter says the flood is a metaphor for Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). The rock that used to provide water for the Israelites is a metaphor for Christ as our spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians 10). And of course the Song of Solomon is both an erotic poem extolling the beauty of sexual love, and an allegory of God’s love for the Church.

 

[jcrichton]

I agree, though I would add that actual historical events can also serve as types, symbols, and metaphors. For example, St. Peter says the flood is a metaphor for Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). The rock that used to provide water for the Israelites is a metaphor for Christ as our spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians 10). And of course the Song of Solomon is both an erotic poem extolling the beauty of sexual love, and an allegory of God’s love for the Church.

…don’t think I agree with the rock metaphor–St. Paul was adamant that He, Christ Jesus, was the rock that provided life to the Hebrews…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Latinitas]

I agree, though I would add that actual historical events can also serve as types, symbols, and metaphors. For example, St. Peter says the flood is a metaphor for Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). The rock that used to provide water for the Israelites is a metaphor for Christ as our spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians 10). And of course the Song of Solomon is both an erotic poem extolling the beauty of sexual love, and an allegory of God’s love for the Church.

I fully agree with the first part. I’m not saying there’s no valid typical or allegorical interpretations; I’m just trying to emphasize the truth of the literal historical sense, which the Church has always held.

Having said that, this is not the case in the Song of Solomon. According to the traditional interpretation of the Song, accepted by Catholics, and formerly so by most Protestants, the Song is allegorical in it’s literal sense. That is to say, Solomon wrote this Song as an allegory, to symbolize the love of God for Israel. In the allegorical or typical sense, it’s a beautiful song of the love of Jesus Christ for the Church. It can and has been applied to the Virgin Mary, as well as the individual soul as well. But, according to tradition (which orthodox Catholic exegetes take seriously), this song has nothing to do with marriage or sex, except superficially. It’s never used in the marriage liturgies (for a description of chaste wedlock, Tobit was more likely used), it is always treated allegorically with no implication of a historical or ‘literal’ reality etc.

I’m doing a bit of research on this, which is why I haven’t responded to Lethal Mouse’s post. I’m thinking also, that since this thread is going off topic, I’ll start another specifically about the interpretation of the Song of Solomon.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[CeelosDeznos]

“Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere…”

So goes the most famous account of one of the most pivotal events in United States history, the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. Ask just about anyone in the USA to describe who Paul Revere was and what he did and you will get generally the same details, most learned in childhood in school history classes.

These details you will hear are also wrong, historically speaking. What every American learns about Paul Revere is what his ride meant, not exactly how his ride actually played out. The historically inaccurate account Americans recite about Revere are actually from the poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Henry W. Longfellow.

Longfellow’s poem is not meant to be read as historically accurate because his “mistakes” were deliberate strokes of the pen created to explain what Revere’s bravery means to America. He did not merely manipulate the facts for dramatic effect, but took liberties to make American values stand out in his retelling of the events. Like The Song of Hiawatha and The Courtship of Miles Standish that came before, Longfellow was lifting up the simply historic to the place it now sat in Americana, the place of Legends.

Legends aren’t false stories, but they aren’t true either. For example, George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree as a boy and never followed this up with the confession: “I cannot tell a lie.” Evita Peron of Argentina was never called out onto the balcony of the Casa Rosada on the night of her husband’s election to sing to the people: “Don’t cry for me, Argentina!”

These are not literal retelling of events, but they aren’t completely false stories either. Washington set an example for all future presidents that made honesty a stand-out value and demand of politicians in America. To this day “fact checking” is often used as a means to determine who is the more trustworthy candidate for the American president. And though Evita Peron never addressed the nation in song on the night her husband was elected, she had been so responsible for her husband’s political success due to having won over the heart of Argentina. Some in that country regard her as a saint, and so nothing less but a song can truly capture the feeling this enigmatic figure inspired in her people.

The stories in the Old Testament regarding Israel conquering other nations is a similar narrative device. I’m of Jewish descent myself, and our history along with archeological and DNA evidence suggests that we merged a lot more with the people of the Fertile Crescent than the Bible suggests. Intermarriage and societal mingling happened far more than military vanquishing. But then why tell the story the way it appears in the Bible?

Because the people of the Fertile Crescent who merged with Jews were in a sense conquered. The majority of them embraced the religious views of the children of Abraham to accept the monotheism of Judaism. In a sense those former societies were vanquished, as if God had destroyed every man, woman, and child of the old world and replaced them with the new.

However, as you might note, this was not a successful merge when it came to faithful worship of YHWH. The people held on to a lot of their former ways, so much so that idolatry caused the nation to splinter and eventually led to their being deported to Babylon.

It was during their stay in Babylon that the Jews learned how precious and far superior the worship of the one true God was in comparison to the heathens’ that they were forced to lived among. This reshaped their stories into such a form that emphasized the need for vanquishing idol worship from their midst. Upon returning to the Holy Land, the Scriptures were finalized with some of these “poetic liberties” to emphasize the need to never allow the mixing of heathen idol worship of their neighboring nations with the true and pure worship of God.

So while a literal reading is not necessarily incorrect (the Church neither demands nor discourages such), it should never be accepted at the cost of the religious lesson being emphasized. First and foremost the account of my people the Jews is a religious retelling of our past, not a dry, secular history. The stories are meant to elevate your religion, not your secular historical knowledge. The values and lessons against idol worship and degraded morals is what God expects us to vanquish. It is retelling yesterday’s events with a catechesis designed to raise our values and morality, not make us history buffs or archeologists.

If there is ever a question as to whether some violent act took place exactly as described, ask yourself: What religious lesson does a literal reading tell me compared to one where allegory or poetic license might? Does the literal reading match with what I know of a God who is the personification of love? The real story is usually something between the literal account and the critical scholar’s approach, but more important than any is the religious truth that the narrative is trying to tell us.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether it is based on history or some other literary form the author has a primary point to make.

We are concerned with whether God actually ordered the complete killing of the Caananites. And some have said that this means God is unjust to kill innocents. And so the question, did this really happen? And then an answer is needed to justify the killing. But even if it was based only on mythology, an answer would still be needed to justify the teaching of the killing. …

Historians report that the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, sacrificed infants to their gods. Apparently, the Israelites did not accomplish God’s command as the Canaanite remnant escaped to northern Africa to resume their practice of infanticide at Carthage. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area contained as many as 20,000 burial urns. The Romans (pagans) under Scipio Aemilianus completed God’s command in the Third Punic War reducing Carthage to rubble in 149 BC.

 

[goout]

Whether it is based on history or some other literary form the author has a primary point to make.

We are concerned with whether God actually ordered the complete killing of the Caananites.

To answer that question, knowledge of God’s nature is required. How do we know God?
Through his son, Jesus Christ. Is the passage compatible with what we know about God through the person of Jesus Christ?

And some have said that this means God is unjust to kill innocents. And so the question, did this really happen?

The question is not really about whether the events happened, the question is about the literal implications the ancient author gives to the events. Ancient cultures attributed God’s direct will and action to historical and natural events in a way that we do not. Hence we cannot read this passage with modern eyes in a literalist way.

And then an answer is needed to justify the killing.

It seems to me that is going about it backwards. An answer is needed to justify the reporting of an event that is imputed to God’s direct will and command when the command seems to be incompatible with God’s nature.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

As I pointed out in my reply, readers have often made the mistake of approaching the text as if it meant to make a person a student of history instead or religion. That is what my reference to Paul Revere, George Washington, and Eva Durate de Peron is meant to help demonstrate.

 

[jcrichton]

Historians report that the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, sacrificed infants to their gods. Apparently, the Israelites did not accomplish God’s command as the Canaanite remnant escaped to northern Africa to resume their practice of infanticide at Carthage. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area contained as many as 20,000 burial urns. The Romans (pagans) under Scipio Aemilianus completed God’s command in the Third Punic War reducing Carthage to rubble in 149 BC.

…yet, the Command was not to raze all other nations from the face of the earth but to remove them from: a) the land inherited by the Hebrews, and b) not intermarrying and adopting their cultures (which meant, specifically, their deities).

Maran atha!

Angel